How a butterfly influences teh presidential search

The tiny breeze in your face that you do not feel is the wind of change
sweeping through the MIT administration. Is there a butterfly in California
flapping its wings and thereby creating currents which would determine the
leadership that will pilot MIT toward the 21st century?

The Butterfly Effect (originally proposed by our emeritus colleague
Edward N. Lorenz SM '43) is a whimsical extrapolation from the theory of
chaos which asserts that some dynamic systems are so complex that no
imaginable variable is external to them. The theory asserts that it may be
reasoned that the fluttering of a butterfly's wings in Pasadena could have
<>

a major effect on Cambridge's weather weeks later.

Is the behavior of the MIT presidential search committee an affirmation
of the Butterfly Effect? I have been wondering recently why the committee
doesn't resist its fluttering urges, ignore third-order noise, do the right
thing (God bless <>

Spike Lee) and nominate Dean Lester C. Thurow to become the 15th President
of the Institute. I've never met Lester Thurow; therefore, it may be
concluded that in the eyes of the MIT administration there is, at least,
one thing that's in his favor.

Those who think that the MIT presidency is primarily an intellectual
academic role are applying 19th century thinking to a 21st century task.
Visionary, charismatic, articulate, global perspective, influential,
strategist, and yes, intelligence are words which should come to mind in
considering the potential leader of a world-class modern academic
institution. L. T. (perfect initials for a linebacker) more than anyone at
MIT is that person.

This search committee dismays me. Are they looking for a person to serve
as a faculty member or a president? I believe, when considering candidates,
they are presently inclined to count publications, assess Nobel Prize
prospects, or perhaps seek an economist's economist. (Paul Samuelson is the
only economist who knows everything, but he's retired.) Number of
publications and prospects for prizes are attractive qualities in anyone,
but what is their controlling relevance in a prospective MIT president?

I fear the committee will unload another surprising and surprised nominee
with a rich sauce of academic cant, designed to cat reality and designed to
convince us that they have selected the savior. We're big boys and girls;
there's no need to gravy our hamburger to disguise it as filet mignion.

Is Lester Thurow perfect? No way. Do you know any perfect leaders? Have
you ever heard of any perfect leaders (excluding American mythology of
course)? As a community, we should be mature enough to stop pretending to
require such nonsense. Still, if Thurow has half the vision, competence and
compassion I think he has, he's likely to surpass the "achievements" of the
present waning regime -- a regime during which we've witnessed, among other
things, a dictatorial corporate management style, the barbaric physical
attacking of our academic progeny as they peacefully protested at home
(which is just what this campus is), and the decimation of the MIT black
faculty (despite those dubious minority faculty numbers which it
publishes).

The rap on Lester Thurow is that he will never win the Nobel Prize, that
he is frothy, not inclined to address details, flighty; you know, like a
butterfly. To be blunt, his critics say he is Less Thorough. Well, this is
the pedantic chatter of little politicians. (What they don't say is that he
is smidgen too liberal for the neo right-wingers.) If they want someone to
tend to everyday nuts and bolts, hire an administrative mechanic. The issue
is not the management of an ice-cream parlor in Central Square but the
leadership of a world-renowned institution, polarized around engineering
and the sciences with peerage throughout the humanities and arts. Generals
delegate missions to colonels and majors who pass along details to captains
and lieutenants for sergeants to implement.

MIT's national and international roles could shrink or expand
significantly as a result of this committee's choices. If the main focus of
the US consciousness during the 1930s was overcoming the depression, the
1940s defeating the Axis, the 1950s containing communism and improving the
standard of living, the 1960s embracing technology and civil struggles, the
1970s recognizing global limitations and social needs, and the 1980s
economic competition and the declining debt-based standard of living; then
the 1990s should be about addressing our deficits: trade (international
competitiveness), federal (public and corporate infrastructure, savings and
investment) and people (education, quality of life and pluralism). The
relationship between a great university and the engaging of these deficits
is perceived by no candidate better than Lester Thurow.

He is a visionary, enthusiastically articulate in the presentation of his
perspectives on issues and solutions to problems. He greatly values science
and engineering, and he greatly respects science and engineering educators.
He is global in his views and collegial in his approach. He has a national
and international identity that exceeds that of any (incoming) president in
the history of MIT. (Just think, the committee members won't have to go
around responding to the question "Lester who?") He is already a leader.

Unless this search committee is in a fog, they're probably focusing on
insiders at this point. Is there a self-respecting outsider, worthy of
consideration, who would test his or her mettle in these muddy
predator-infested waters? Let's face it, it would take a neophyte six
months simply to find the fourth floor of Building 11. Any newcomer is
likely to be put on a leash, led around by the nose by the current
administration, and told whom to select as provost, dean for this and dean
for that. No one who is or desires to be president of MIT is free, and an
outsider would be least free.

Perhaps the search committee will now be constrained by the law of the
conservation of collective constitutional compensation -- I know of no such
law but there could be such a principle -- which states that each flash of
committee darkness must be balanced by a flash of committee light. Perhaps
they will recognize that sometimes opportunity does not arrive with a bang,
but with a breeze; the breeze in their faces which they have not yet felt,
the breeze of The Butterfly.

who

James Williams '67 is a professor in the Department of Mechanical
Engineering.->